That would be a tragedy of the highest order. Not because we start from the position that India must go nuclear, but because the option must not be closed before our strategic defence review is completed. This review is sorely needed now as we have hobbled along for decades without a defence strategy. And given Pakistan's recent induction of missiles capable of delivering nuclear payloads in the neighbourhood, there is no getting away from a clear-sighted long-term defence plan for India.

But if you were to listen to the quality of arguments on the subject -- with a few notable exceptions -- the broad tenor is an ostrich-like refusal to face reality. The anti-nuclear chorus has risento a crescendo on the basis of specious, and even spurious, arguments. Consider some of them. Argument one is that "we mustn't over-react" to Pakistan's Ghauri. We are the bigger country, and we can handle any threat. Sure, we can, provided we understand the threat. But what is real nature of the threat? When one neighbouring country (China) arms another (Pakistan), and when we have fought wars with both, we need to consider the possibility that the first country is trying to use the second to achieve what it cannot itself do: force us to abandon the nuclear option. Is it ever possible to conclude that China has no axe to grind in south Asia?

Argument two: Nuclear missiles can never be used as battlefield weapons, so what's the point of producing them? The whole point about nuclear missiles is their deterrent effect. The question is: has any nuclear state ever fought another in the last 50 years? The answer: almost never. The implication is simple: nuclear weapons prevent war.

Argument three: If we defyworld opinion, we may face sanctions. A variant of this argument: India cannot afford to antagonise the US if we need more foreign investment. This begs the question: if on a vital issue like national security we cannot do what we think is in our interest, what is to stop the nuclear powers from using the same intimidatory tactics to deny us technology or trade benefits? China has managed to find a place for itself on the world trade map without being part of the WTO. It continues to be the only fascist country in the world into which western investment is flooding. The reason is obvious: it is an unrepentant nuclear power and the west is afraid of the yellow peril. True, it also has a huge market, but so does India.

Argument four: We mustn't do anything to spoil relations with China. A corollary: we must not move away from the Nehruvian consensus on defence and foreign policy. Certainly, nobody advocates a stupidly aggressive foreign policy towards China. But is it wise to lower our guard when it is morethan apparent that China is trying to debilitate us by arming its vassal state Pakistan? As for Nehru's defence policy, we know what happened in 1962. Moral talk without armed might means nothing to the Chinese -- who are probably the world's most amoral people in the use and abuse of power. We should have no illusions on this score.

Argument five: Nuclear weapons are too costly to produce. This argument, from a former finance minister, truly takes the cake. While nobody says nuclear weapons are cheap, the truth is conventional defence is costlier -- given the increasing cost of men and material. Most importantly, conventional war capabilities never prevent war -- they may sometimes encourage countries that think they are stronger to launch into adventures that they later regret. Consider the Pakistani attacks on India in 1965 and 1971. Only nuclear weapons can prevent war because the consequences are too horrible to contemplate.

To top it all is the moral argument. Gandhi, say some of India'santi-nuclear lobbyists, would be horrified to find that his land of ahimsa is taking to the path of nuclear nirvana and missile machismo. It is one thing to argue that we shouldn't induct nuclear weapons or ICBMs for reasons of pure national pride, but it is quite another to divert the argument away from the core issue--whether India needs to invest in a credible nuclear deterrent--and concentrate instead on some of the unpleasant side-effects of a decision to go nuclear. This is like saying that since nuclear medicine may be bitter, it is better not to get the disease diagnosed. It is pure and simple cowardice.

Our view is that India may have no option but to go nuclear for three reasons: one, the deteriorating internal security situation, thanks to Pakistan's low-intensity warfare in Kashmir and other parts of the country; two, the emerging geopolitical scenario where a China-Pakistan nexus stands unmatched by the countervailing power of an Indo-Russian axis, thanks to Russia's decline as a world power;and, three, the obvious linkages between economic and political clout in a unipolar world.

We do not deny that ultimately it is economic power that makes nations strong, but in the short run a strong defence is critical to giving India the leeway to build itself into an economic powerhouse. Unlike the south-east Asian nations or Japan, India does not have the benefit of a nuclear umbrella -- nor is it desirable that we seek one if we value our independence. India's advantage is that we can afford to stand alone -- like China. Our destiny is to chart a moral course based on internal strength and a sound defence policy that calls for all-round non-discriminatory nuclear disarmament within a specified timeframe. For this we need to tell the world that we will not allow self-doubt to cripple us in exercising our nuclear option.